Should fire protection be handled the same way as health care reform?

[Fumesucker]

To wit: Should the federal government mandate that everyone buy a policy with a private fire protection company and provide for penalties levied by the IRS if you do not buy such coverage?

Of course, those with lower incomes could have a portion or even all of their policy subsidized by the federal government.

If it's such a great idea for health care, why not extend it to fire protection also?

[JVS]

1. Yes. One single mandatory government run comprehensive system for both.

[Duer 157099]

2. Or....

Everyone must pay taxes out of which fire protection is paid for.

Just like health care should be.

You have the question backwards, imho.

[yourout]

4. Ding Ding.....we have a winner!

You nailed it.

[Fumesucker]

5. But health care is not that way..

And probably never will be..

Why is what's good for health care not good for fire protection also?

[Duer 157099]

9. But health care IS that way in many countries

Why is what's good for fire protection not also good for health care?

The future is what we make it. Accept less and you will get less.

[Fumesucker]

10. Because we need a uniquely 'Murkin solution to health care..

There was a thread on DU this evening proving that the public option was negotiated away before HCR ever got to Congress..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9261370

Tom Daschle admitted it in his recent book.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. BINGO

but given libertarian attitudes that will not happen... I mean it is like communist and stuff!

[JDPriestly]

14. Why Fulton, Tennessee (if that is the name of the city)

doesn't just impose a $75.00 tax on each household, I do not understand.

What if someone is renting a place in that town, and the landlord does not pay the fire department? Think how horrible that could be.

And I wonder whether the people who don't pay their $75 for the fire department buy fire insurance, and if so, whether the insurance company will pay for the damages if the family did not pay for the fire department fee.

Some municipal charges should not be a matter ofchoice; some things should simply be imposed as a tax.

[Fumesucker]

15. The city of South Fulton is in Kentucky..

The county of Obion is in Tennessee, right over the border..

There is no legal mechanism to force people in one state to pay taxes to a city in another state.

The county residents voted 19-1 against having a tax to fund fire protection.

[JDPriestly]

16. Then they should form a volunteer fired department in the spirit of

Benjamin Franklin.

[Fumesucker]

17. No.. Private subscriptions are the uniquely 'Murkin solution for health care..

Clearly we should have a uniquely 'Murkin solution for fire protection also too..

It's illuminating to note that those who are having the biggest conniption fits over the actions of the FD in TN are quite often the same ones who are telling us that a private mandate for health insurance is the greatest thing since the discovery of fire and a monstrous victory for Democrats.

Go through the threads on the TN fire and look at who is screaming the loudest that the FD was totally in the wrong, I see a pattern and I'm not alone in that.

[Hannah Bell]

18. south fulton, tennessee does tax each household in the city for its fire service.

it has no authority to levy taxes in the *county*.

county residents have no fire service because they voted not to have one.

instead, they voted to allow their residents to contract individually with the city -- or not, as they saw fit.

now do you understand?

[JDPriestly]

23. Out here in Southern California, fires are a tremendous hazard.

We have our fire season like other people have the swimming season. If you live in certain areas, you can be ordered to cut the brush on your property. Governments put out fires. That is one of their essential duties.

It is unimaginable to us that a government would just let a fire burn without a reason. Fires are just too dangerous here.

I have the impression that if you are located near an area that is threatened with fire, fire fighters can pretty much do what they want to your property -- cut shrubs, whatever. I may be wrong about that, but it is a matter of public safety. For firefighters to just let a house burn, to even leave it up to individuals to choose whether or not have fire protection, is incomprehensible to me.

And I suppose the people who voted against paying for a public fire department are rah, rah Homeland Security. They are more likely to lose their lives from fires than from terrorists. How stupid can you get?

[villager]

3. Yes, we should allow ourselves to be brainwashed that "private insurance" = "fire dept."

Just as we were brainwashed into thinking "private insurance" = "health care 'reform'"

[glinda]

6. Excellent response

[Fumesucker]

7. I don't suppose it occurred to you that I was actually looking for such a response?

Note that none of the "HCR is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel" folks have shown up on this thread..

[Rex]

8. yep.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Most places in the U.S. it is paid for by taxes. n/t

[Fumesucker]

13. I did not know that.

/Johnny Carson

But the point is that a private mandate is so great for health insurance/care, it should be absolutely perfect for fire protection/police and so on right down the line..

[Hannah Bell]

19. but not in this county. they voted not to provide *any* fire service & instead

allow residents to contract with cities individually.

or not, as each individual chose.

because "forcing" people to pay for fire protection would be unamerican socialism.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. Republicans perfer to charge a fee rather than levy a tax. It is called self delusion.

And it doesn't make what happened right. There is a concept of common good that is not socialism.

[Hannah Bell]

20. recced your thread, but the spinners got there first.

[TexasObserver]

22. You don't need to start a new thread for every new rationalization.

[leftstreet]

24. K&InvisibleR